When there is a conflict between the moral norm and
the law, i.e. between natural law and positive law, the only instrument to
overcome the dilemma or the clash is conscientious objection. Conscientious
objection represents a founded and legitimate dissent in relation to the
constituted order, due to its dissonance towards a higher law.

The theme that has been chosen as the object of this Meeting has a
fundamental importance, and it is for this reason that the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith supported the event organized by the Catholic
Doctors.

Introduction

John Paul II's encyclic Veritatis Splendor affirms that all laws "are
born and lead to the eternal, wise and loving design with which God
predestinates men "to be like the image of his Son" (Rm 8,29)" (n. 45).
Natural moral law is the first and basic participation of man to God's
salvific design. It represents the original constitution of man as a moral
being, and it makes possible the reception of any further moral instance. At
the same time, however, we must affirm that moral natural law is from an
objective point of view insufficient and fragmentary, not only in relation
to the entirety of God's salvific design in Christ, but also in relation to
social life, both in the context of the State and in the context of the
Church. Natural law needs to be specified and completed by state laws and by
church laws.

We ask: is that which became or is becoming law always right? Or, taking
a step ahead, is it moral? Today we are witnessing an obscuration and, in
some cases, a loss on the individual, social and political plane, and at
times also on the theological and ecclesiastical plane, of moral perceptions
of great importance. Some of them, for long centuries have been clear and
unquestionable, and as such they enjoyed a general and pacific theoretic
acceptance (for example abortion, contraception, homosexuality). Others,
instead, correspond to new and complex problems posed by the development of
science and technique (for example, the problems of bioethics).

An accurate investigation should uncover which are the causes of the
obscuring of these ethical perceptions. The investigation should consider
the principles and the conditions that determine the formation, the
evolution and the disappearance of moral conscience, or of immediate moral
perceptions.

Already in the '70ies, during the diatribe between the German episcopacy
and the socialist government of Chancellor Schmidt, Chancellor Schmidt
stated that educating consciences to the perception and the appraisal of
ethical values was a specific duty of Churches, not of the State: the State
only had to gather the fruits, in the expression of the free choices of
citizens, of such educationâ€¦

The crucial problem therefore is a cultural problem. Card. Ruini, in his
speech of last May 14th to the General Assembly of Italian
Bishops, stated that in the ethical context there are too many "areas of
moral insensitiveness", cases of confusion and "almost of disintegration of
consciences" which often translate into tragic events that shake public
opinion and which are influenced by negative and corrupting images and
models of life &emdash;proposed with nonchalance and insistence by
television- but also the examples that adults hand down to the new
generations. "Below all this there is a worrisome ethical void that
characterizes wide sectors of culture. We must reach the roots of moral
poverty, so as to heal them and regenerate man" (Avvenire,
5.14.2001).

In front of the loss of importance of natural law in today's society and,
at the same time, in front of the ethical void above all in the conscience
of those who govern, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
organized a Symposium on the following theme: Catholics and pluralistic
society -- the case of "imperfect laws" (Rome, November 9-12 1994). The
debate is open and involves all, clergymen and faithful of the Church.

Pluralistic society, democracy, majority principle, rights of man, et
cetera, constitute in some way the horizon in which today stands the
question of the Christian participation or refusal concerning "imperfect
laws".

The emergence of pluralistic society throughout history causes Western
societies today to no longer recognize the duty, on part of the authorities,
to maintain a consensus on moral values because, basically, one is turned
towards the respect of the freedom of opinion and expression. The Christian
legislator witnesses that the majority of public opinion refuses the right
to ask respect of certain superior values because such claim would appear as
the intrusion of an "ideologic" division in society.

In particular, in the field of anthropology and of morals, the spread of
secularization reduced pluralism to a dualism: on the one hand secular
culture of immanence and praxis; on the other hand, Christian culture of
transcendence and being. Law however in the end takes away from the basis of
the latter the ontologic reality of the human being, proposing instead the
founding of an empiric nature.

As we reflect on democracy and on the principles sustaining it, we can
speak of a comparison with "imperfect laws" in the light of the critique of
the two extreme hypotheses: the so-called "reductionist" hypothesis
(politics must make room for social reality), and that which favours the
material request of a good life in function of the historical and
environmental emergencies of our time. If the comparison is not only of
theoretic-philosophical nature, but strictly of operational-political
nature, dignity and the rights of man will have to be the constituting
factor of social order. It will then be possible to tolerate "imperfect
laws" that will guarantee the normative nature of social order as a
relational reality. On the contrary, it will not be possible to tolerate
those "imperfect laws" that, in the name of the promotion of a right, change
this relational character, contributing thus to legitimate a utilitarian
administration of the social order.

Law is based on morality and at the same time is separate from it, in the
sense that it covers only those aspects that seriously threaten justice. The
majority of ethical principles of the constitution of the State have a
utilitarian base. One protects the right of others in order to protect his
own rights. On the contrary, it is necessary to take a further step: it is
necessary to create a whole of legal conditions that may protect those who
cannot find support in the pure utilitarian approach; above all when the
human foetus and the newborn are posed on the same level as an animal.

Can Christians who are active in politics and in social action,
reasonably try and modify the main lines of politics and of public laws in
the sense of Christian truth? A tentative answer can be provided in the
following terms: 1) the objective of formal collaboration must be right,
that is to say it must point to a positive result in relation to Christian
values; 2) the gravity of negative secondary effects tied to material
collaboration (considering the efforts necessary to limit it) must be
reasonably proportional to the evil that must be avoided.

The social doctrine of the Church considers "imperfect laws" as
"theological moral questions" and therefore they can be object of an
explanatory intervention on the part of the authority of the Church through
its magisterium.

The Church enjoys a potestas moralis that, in the final analysis,
is rooted in the libertas Ecclesiae (distinguished from the right to
religious freedom). This potestas has an indisputable legal value,
both if it evokes a relationship between ecclesiastical authority and
Christian laymen who are busy with the Christian animation of the temporal
order (potestas magisterii), and if it indicates the values to be
upheld even inside any civil society that wants to organize itself
"according to justice". Laymen have the specific obligation to animate and
perfect temporal realities according to the spirit of the Gospel and, as a
consequence, they have the freedom to determine themselves in a responsible
manner in such sector. This obviously does not exclude for the legislator,
Christian or not, to start a dialogue with clergymen to receive from them
orientations and normative indications of ethical and theological order.

If the primary function of the law is that of realizing social peace, the
fact that a law is deemed "just" implies its conformity to the ethical order
and to natural law that transcend positive law. When there is a conflict
between the moral norm and the law, i.e. between natural law and positive
law, the only instrument to overcome the dilemma or the clash is
conscientious objection.

Conscientious objection represents a founded and legitimate dissent in
relation to the constituted order, due to its dissonance towards a higher
law.

Unfortunately, in the great democratic societies of the actual world,
where there are many unjust laws, on the one side conscientious objection is
almost done away with, but on the other side many Catholics do not fulfill
their duty of opposing themselves to these laws. The main reason rests on
the weakness on their faith and of their Christian engagement, or in the
incorrect division of the roles between clergymen and laymen. It is urgent
that clergymen proclaim with strength and integrally the Catholic faith and
the moral project inspired by Christ, rather than stop at prudential
judgements of socio-political nature, and that they remind laymen their
dignity and their own apostolate.

In conclusion, given the specific duty of clergymen in relation to their
vocation, it is Christian laymen who mostly have to confront the "imperfect
laws" of actual democracy. There are three possible attitudes in this
regard:

Prophetic resistance, when one has to assert a higher
value than that proposed by the State. Collaboration, when it is not a
question of evil as such, but of good, in a concrete way the good of
eliminating or reducing that evil that evil can produce. Since this attitude
can be difficult to understand for those who are not directly involved in
political experience, it must be explained publicly by those who take in
conscience such decision. Tolerance, that cannot be realized unless when a
resistance to evil would entail a greater evil.

These three attitudes are to be considered as different ways of asserting
the truth and the good in the world. He who tolerates or he who
collaborates, must not be judged as a fearful man or as mediocre, but as
someone who tries to bury into the infinitely diversified grounds of today's
world "the small grain of mustard" (Mt 13, 31-32 and parallels). On the
contrary, he who resists "unjust laws" must not be considered an extremist
distant from reality, but rather a true craftsman of truth and of good in
the world.

This leads us to insist again upon the importance of the fact that the
different ways of asserting the truth in front of "unjust laws" are rooted
in a local Church united and living.

The internalization of normative contents is the first step to resist to
unjust laws and to take them away from an orientation that is intended
created for the realization of the common good.

Catholics who are active in political life and social action should ask
themselves what they did or what they left aside of what could have
contributed to eliminate, or at least to lessen, some situations that make
the receipt of the values of life, of the dignity of every person, of the
respect of the laws of creation, in the family or in society, difficult.

How many of these objectives have been achieved and to what point the
fact that they were not achieved depended upon objective difficulties, or to
what point it depended upon little engagement? These are questions to which
only the conscience of the responsible individuals can provide a suitable
answer.